Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SYLLABUS
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR ., J : p
Cielito Salud, Clerk IV, Mailing Section of the Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals
(CA) stands charged with the following offenses:
1. Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties;
The Facts
Melchor Lagua was found guilty of homicide in Criminal Case Nos. 118032-H and 118033-
H before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 163. 2 On appeal, the case was
assigned to the Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 27423.
Lagua, who was then detained at the Bureau of Prisons National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa
City, filed a Very Urgent Petition for Bail. Finding the petition well-taken, the appellate court
issued a Resolution on October 9, 2003, directing him to post a P200,000.00 bond.
Lagua's bond was approved in a Resolution 3 dated November 6, 2003, where the appellate
court also directed the issuance of an order of release in favor of Lagua. The resolution
was then brought to the Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Atty. Maria Isabel M.
Pattugalan-Madarang, for promulgation.
Irma Del Rosario, Utility Worker, noticed the respondent's unusual interest in the Lagua
case. The respondent had apparently been making inquiries whether the appellate court
had already directed the issuance of an order of release in the said case and was initially
told there was none yet. Due to his persistence, the records of the case were eventually
found. 4 Atty. Madarang then directed the typing of the Order of Release Upon Bond, 5 and
to notify the mailing section that there were orders requiring personal service. 6 At around
4:00 p.m., the respondent then went to Atty. Madarang's office and assisted in arranging
and stapling the papers for release. He brought the said resolutions and other papers
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
himself to the Mailing Section. 7
On November 7, 2003, the respondent went to the National Penitentiary to serve the
resolution and order of release in the Lagua case. The respondent left the prison
compound at around 2:30 p.m. 8
In the meantime, Atty. Madarang received a telephone call from a certain Melissa Melchor,
who introduced herself as Lagua's relative. It was about 2:00 p.m. The caller asked her
how much more they had to give to facilitate Lagua's provisional liberty. The caller also
told Atty. Madarang that they had sought the help of a certain Rhodora Valdez of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, where the criminal case originated, but were told that
they still had a balance to be given to Justice Magtolis and Atty. Madarang through the
respondent. Atty. Madarang then called the said court and asked to speak to Ms. Valdez,
pretending to be Lagua's relative. HSDIaC
6. That I got Salud's mobile phone number from Ms. Secarro and started
texting him at about the same time Ms. Secarro did. I represented myself
as Arlyn, Lagua's relative. Most of his text messages are still stored in my
mobile phone. In fact, I received one text message from him while I was at
the office of Justice Magtolis, (the Chairman of the 6th Division and the
ponente of C.R. No. 27423) in the late afternoon of November 7, 2003
while reporting to her this incident. Those stored in my phone are the
following:
1. bkit, C rhodora to. 639204439082. — Nov. 2003, 15:36:15
12. D ba pwede bukas tyo kita. May gusto lang ako malaman —
639184470111 7 Nov 2003 21:02:41
8. That I personally called up the Bureau of Prisons for the exact time the
Order of Release was delivered and when accused appellant Lagua was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
released. I learned that the Order of Release was received at 9:15 A.M. and
that Lagua was released between 5-5:30 P.M. of November 7, 2003.
9. That I was able to talk to Rhodora Valdez the following Monday, November
10, 2003. Again, I introduced myself as Lagua's relative, Arlyn and told her I
only wanted to know how much more we had to pay for Lagua's release.
She refused to entertain me because according to her, "Hindi ikaw ang
kausap ko. Duda ako sa yo. Kung gusto mo, puntahan mo ako dito bukas,
para magkita tayo. Pero lumabas na si Lagua. Itinawag sa akin ni Lito
Salud." Then, she [hung] up.
10. That on Tuesday, November 11, 2003, I brought Salud, accompanied by
Ms. Secarro to Justice Magtolis. Out of the confrontation, we discovered
that Salud did not properly serve the copies of the Resolution and Order of
Release upon the accused-appellant and his counsel, Atty. Salvador C.
Quimpo of the Quimpo Dingayan-Quimpo and Associates. He gave them to
a certain Art, allegedly Lagua's relative who he claimed approached him at
the Bureau of Prisons in the morning of November 7, 2003. He told Justice
Magtolis that he gave these documents to Art, who promised to take care
of them, even before he could deliver the copy addressed to the Director of
Prisons. He never mentioned that this Art was connected with the office of
accused-appellant's counsel. Because of this information from Salud
himself, I did not sign the Certificate of Service, Annex "C".
11. That several days later, Salud accompanied by Ms. Secarro, came to my
office to apologize. But before he could even say a word, he broke down in
[wails]. In between his loud cries, he uttered, "Boss, patawad po, alang-
alang sa aking mga anak." 9
On November 11, 2003, Justice Magtolis called the respondent to her office. When
confronted, the respondent denied extorting or receiving money for Lagua's release, or in
any other case. He, however, admitted serving the copies of resolution and order of release
intended for Lagua and his counsel to Art Baluran. 1 0 Justice Magtolis then called the
respondent to a meeting with Clerk of Court Atty. Tessie L. Gatmaitan, who stated that she
would transfer the respondent to another office which has nothing to do with cases.
Justice Magtolis lodged the complaint against the respondent in a Letter dated November
14, 2003, containing, among others, the following allegations:
The delivery of resolutions/orders to unauthorized persons and "complete
strangers" who promised to "take care thereof" ("siya na raw ang bahala")
constitutes not only neglect of duty but also conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service. Staying for the whole day within the vicinity of the National
Bilibid Prisons to the point of failing to fulfill his other duties for the day
constitutes inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.
On the other hand, the use of my name and that of our Division Clerk of Court to
illegally solicit financial or material benefit from parties with pending cases
before this Court is illegal per se.
Attached to the complaint were the following documents to support the charges:
ANNEX "A" — Record of the cases received by Salud on November 6, 2003 for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
delivery/service the following day, November 7, 2003. Please note that in each of
the 3 cases assigned to him, there are several parties/counsels to be served.
ANNEX "B" — Certificate of Service signed by Salud, attested by the Acting Chief
of the Mailing Section and Division Clerk of Court Ma. Ramona L. Ledesma,
showing that the parties/counsel in SP-67586 were served only on November 10,
2003 (not on November 7, 2003).
ANNEX "H" — Copy of the Order of Release upon Bond, which Salud was
supposed to deliver, among others on November 7, 2003 to the defense counsel,
the appellant and the OSG. 1 2
4.5 That when I received the resolution, I read the same and found out that
the hearing is still scheduled on December 10, 2003 at 10:30 a.m.;
4.6 That when I was about to leave to deliver the Writ of Habeas Corpus and
the Notice of Hearing to the PAO, Quezon City, my officemate Jun Vicencio
told me to wait because Irma, the staff of Atty. Madarang requested me to
standby because I need to deliver the Order of Release to the New Bilibid
Prison, Muntinlupa;
4.7 That because of the request I waited until 4:00 p.m.;
4.8 That because its already late, I decided to go to Atty. Madarang's office to
inquire about the Order of Release which I need to deliver to the New Bilibid
Prison, Muntinlupa;
4.9 That Atty. Madarang told me to wait a little while because the order is
about to be finished. So I waited.
4.10 That Atty. Madarang gave to me the Order of Release at 4:15 p.m.
4.11 That because I am aware that I may not reach [the] New Bilibid Prison on
time, I told Atty. Madarang that I can deliver it on November 7, 2003, early
in the morning. She agreed and told me "THANK YOU" Ikaw na ang bahala;
4.12 That I informed my boss about the Order of Release that was assigned
to me and she had it listed in our logbook. I asked my boss [Cecil Secarro]
if I can deliver the Notice of Hearing for SP 67586 and the others on
Monday if I cannot finish delivering them on November 7, 2003. She
agreed but told me to be sure that the Order of Release will be served first
and the others be served not later than Monday, November 10, 2003.
Thereafter, I went home.
4.13 That on November 7, 2003, I went straight to [the] New Bilibid Prison and
arrived there before 8:00 [a.m.] Unfortunately, all the staff wearing white
uniforms and the security guards were falling in line in front of the building
of the New Bilibid Prison. So I could not enter the administration office.
4.14 That while I was standing in front of the building where the
administrative office is located, a certain ART approached me and asked
me if I am the personnel of the Court of Appeals who will deliver the Order
of Release.
4.15 That I said yes, and he told me his name and said that he is a relative of
MELCHOR LAGUA (prisoner) and is connected with the office of Atty.
[Quimpo].
4.16 That at around 9:30 [a.m.] I was able to enter the administrative offices
but because there was no staff inside — I went to the documentation
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
office. The staff in the documentation office told me to submit the Order of
Release to the administrative office. He said that they will prepare the
documents of MELCHOR LAGUA (prisoner) but also told me that the
prisoner might be released on Monday yet because the signatories are
busy attending the ongoing 98 anniversary celebration;
4.17 That I returned to the administrative office and was able to find Mr.
JUANITO TORRES, Administrative Officer III, who received the copy for the
Director but refused to receive the copy of Mr. LAGUA. He told me to wait
for his staff to receive the copy of Mr. LAGUA;
4.18 That because the staff were not around, I went to the canteen to buy
softdrinks to quench my thirst;
4.19 That Mr. ART followed me in the canteen and told me to assist in the
release of Mr. LAGUA because there were no personnel attending to the
Order of Release;
4.20 That since my boss told me to insure the release of the prisoner, I waited
for my staff to arrive who will attend to the matter;
4.21 That I delivered the copy of Mr. LAGUA to the staff. But ART told them
he can receive the copy of Mr. LAGUA because he is his relative so, the
staff told me to give the copy to ART. ESCacI
4.22 That I gave the copy of the Order of Release for the accused to ART. ART
also told me that he is authorized to receive the copy for Atty. Quimpo
because he is also the representative of the law office. Hence, I also gave
the copy for Atty. Quimpo to ART;
4.23 That I was able to finish my duty at the New Bilibid Prison at around
2:30 [p.m.] and I proceeded to Purok I, 6A Bayanan, Muntinlupa to serve the
Writ of Habeas Corpus in CA-G.R. SP No. 80238;
4.24 That because of [sic] the address of the addressee was incomplete, I
found a hard time locating the address of the addressee and when I found
Purok I, 6A, the persons thereat do not know JOEL DE LA PAZ. I asked for
their help but nobody in the place knew JOEL DE LA PAZ;
4.25 That I left Muntinlupa late in the afternoon and due to the lack of time I
decided to deliver the other documents on the next working day which is
Monday, November 10, 2003;
4.26 That I delivered the other documents on Monday, November 10, 2003,
without any problem;
4.27 That I was surprised when Atty. Madarang later on accused me that I
used her name and the name of Justice Magtolis to demand money from
Mr. LAGUA'S relative. 1 4
Considering the gravity of the charges, then Acting Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia 1 5
referred the matter to Atty. Elisa B. Pilar-Longalong, Assistant Clerk of Court, for
investigation, report, and recommendation.
The Investigation
The requisite hearings were held from December 12, 2003 to August 4, 2004.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Atty. Madarang affirmed the contents of her Affidavit 1 6 dated December 8, 2003. She
testified that the respondent later came to her office along with Ms. Secarro. Amidst his
cries, he pleaded, "Boss, patawad po, alang-alang sa aking mga anak." She replied, "Wait,
wala ka namang kasalanan sa akin. Ikaw ang nagpasimuno ng lahat ng ito." The
respondent repeated, "Boss, patawad po alang alang sa aking mga anak," and Atty.
Madarang answered, "Okey lang, pinatawad na kita. Hindi naman ako galit sa iyo." 1 7
Justice Magtolis testified that Atty. Madarang reported having received a telephone call
from the alleged relative of Lagua. She narrated that she gave the name "Arlyn" to the caller,
and, thereafter, exchanged text messages with the respondent. Justice Magtolis
instructed Atty. Madarang to continue communicating with the respondent and, if possible,
to see it through a possible pay-off where a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent
would be asked to assist them. However, the entrapment did not materialize. The
respondent thereafter came to her office, where he was asked why he was unable to serve
all the other papers and documents that day. 1 8 He also admitted that he served a copy of
the resolution to the wrong person (Baluran). Justice Magtolis also stated that she
threatened to transfer the respondent, and that the latter vehemently objected, pleaded,
and cried saying, "Huwag naman pong pa-transfer." When asked why, the respondent said
that he has children in school and something like, "Dyan po ako kumikita." 1 9
Another witness was Cristy Flores, convicted of three counts of estafa who served time at
the Correctional Institute for Women in Batangas City. She testified that the respondent
was introduced to her in December 1998 by a certain Crisanta Gamil. 2 0 Gamil was also
detained at the correctional facility; the respondent had worked on her appeal bond papers
and asked for P20,000.00 to facilitate the issuance of the appeal bond. 2 1 The payment
was made right in front of her, and the respondent issued a receipt. 2 2 The witness also
testified that Gamil told her, "O, at least dyan mo ipalakad ang papel mo. Okay 'yan,
sigurado." 2 3 The respondent visited her in May 1999, as she had asked him to fix her
appeal bond. During the visit, the respondent took the pertinent documents from her. 2 4
The witness also stated that she gave the respondent a partial payment of P7,000.00 2 5 on
May 16, 1999 and he issued a receipt. 2 6 They then proceeded to the Documents Section
where they secured copies of the court decision, certificate of manifestation and her
picture. She made the last payment of P13,000.00 in June 13, 1999, and also issued a
receipt. The respondent was also asking for an additional payment of P15,000.00, which
she was unable to give.
Flores narrated that she introduced another detainee to the respondent, Dalawangbayan,
whom the latter was also able to "help". She stated that according to Dalawangbayan, the
respondent asked for P200,000.00. She further testified that she knew the respondent as
Joselito M. Salud, and not Cielito Salud. 2 7 After the incident, she wrote a letter to
Associate Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. to ask for assistance regarding her appeal bond.
Atty. Salvador Quimpo, Lagua's counsel, testified that it was Engineer Art Baluran who
hired him as counsel of the said accused. He stated that he gave an oral authorization to
Baluran to get the CA resolutions or orders; Baluran was the one who furnished him a copy
of the resolution. 2 8 He called Mr. Baluran to say that an order for Lagua's release had
already been issued by the appellate court. The witness stated, however, that he had never
seen the respondent before. 2 9
The respondent testified that he has been a CA employee since 1991. He admitted that he
knew Flores, and met her in January 1999 when he brought Gamil's order of release in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Batangas City Jail. He claimed that he was waiting for the relatives of Gamil as they were
the ones who would pay for his fare home, and while waiting, he talked to the
jailguard/warden. Flores then approached him and asked him if he was from the CA. When
the respondent answered in the affirmative, Flores replied that Justice Vasquez was her
neighbor in Biñan, Laguna.
The respondent admitted that he was in the Correctional Institute for Women in
Mandaluyong City on May 16, 1999, as he was then visiting Vilma Dalawangbayan. He also
saw Flores. 3 0 When asked why he visited Dalawangbayan, the respondent replied that
Flores had written a letter to him (which he dubbed as "maintrigang sulat") 3 1 addressed
"Lito Salud, Mailing Section, Court of Appeals." In the said letter, Flores asked him to help
Dalawangbayan, just like he had helped Gamil. The respondent then showed the letter to
then Chief of Office Prudencio B. Aguilar, who told him, "Puntahan mo yan, Lito at maintriga
'yang sulat na ‘yan, baka tayo mapahamak dyan." 3 2 Thus, he went to the Correctional
Institute in Mandaluyong City to "sort things out" with Dalawangbayan and Gamil. The
respondent, however, stated that he could not find the letter anywhere and had already
been lost. 3 3
During his May 16, 1999 visit to the correctional facility, Flores approached him in the
visiting hall, and said suddenly, "Sandali lang, Kuya," then left. He then talked to
Dalawangbayan about the "controversial" letter, explaining that his job in the Court of
Appeals was only to remand the records and deliver the Orders for release, just like what
he did in Gamil's case. 3 4 He again visited Dalawangbayan on June 13, 1999 3 5 as
evidenced by the entries in the visitor's logbook. He was no longer able to speak to Flores,
but made five other such visits to Dalawangbayan in the correctional facility. AISHcD
RECOMMENDATION :
2. Considering that the prescribed penalty for the offense exceeds one month
suspension, the case may now be referred to the Supreme Court for appropriate
action, pursuant to Circular No. 30-91 of the Office of the Court Administrator. 3 6
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
Oo. I will just refer to your admission through your counsel that Cellphone
No. 6392044390[8]2 is yours. You admitted that?
ATTY. ROSERO:
I think we made an admission as to that matter, Justice. We'll just check the
affidavit of Atty. Madarang.
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
Here, admitted. Basahin mo.
ATTY. ROSERO:
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
This cellphone is yours.
Q: Do you also admit that you called Atty. Madarang several times on
November 7, 2003?
ATTY. ROSERO:
A: Nuong pong text niya sa akin . . . hindi po several times dahil . . . kung
makita 'nyo po dyan.
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
Let me see the affidavit of Atty. Madarang. After this question, may I ask for
a continuance? AECacT
All these text messages were checked by us with your counsel in the
cellphone of Atty. Madarang which were preserved until we allowed her to
erase these. There are exchanges here: 6392044390[8]2, November 7.
When she texted she answered, "Bkit c Rhodora 2" and then second was,
"Cnong kamaganak anong pangalan mo?" This is addressed to you, this is
your telephone?
A: Opo.
Q: But the one who answered is Rhodora?
A: Ako po 'yun.
Q: Ikaw ang sumasagot. Why did you say that you are Rhodora?
A: Justice, nung ma-receive ko po 'yong text niya apat na beses ko pong na-
receive ang text ni Arlene.
INVESTIGATOR:
Who is Arlene?
A: Atty. Madarang. Arlene, sa text po niya sa akin, "Sir Lito, kamaganak po ito
ni Mr. Lagua. Magkano pa po ba ang kakulangang pera para ibigay ko sa
inyo. Si Rhodora ba kasama?" Hindi ko po sinagot yon. Pangalawa, 'yun
din po ang message nya. Ano ito? Sa akin pong kuan, sa pag-iisip ko lang
po, bakit dahil si Mr. Art Baluran kamag-anak na, ano ito? Text pa ulit pa
sya ng pangatlo. Nang-iintriga na 'to. Pang-apat, intriga 'to. Text ko nga rin
'to, lokohan lang tayo. "Bkit si Rhodora 'to" yun po ang sagot ko sa kanya.
Q: Nakipaglokohan ka?
A: Sa text niya nakalagay dun na "Si Rhodora ba kasama" kaya po ako
nakipaglokohan dun. 4 3
As pointed out by the Investigating Officer, the respondent's claim of "joking around"
("nakipaglokohan") with an unknown sender of a text message by replying thereto is
contrary to a normal person's reaction. This is made even more apparent by the fact that
the respondent even admitted that he called Atty. Madarang twice, and when asked why,
gave a vague answer, and, when further questioned, even broke down in tears. 4 4
The respondent's claim that the admission of the text messages as evidence against him
constitutes a violation of his right to privacy is unavailing. Text messages have been
classified as "ephemeral electronic communication" under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules
on Electronic Evidence, 4 5 and "shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a
party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof." Any question as to the admissibility
of such messages is now moot and academic, as the respondent himself, as well as his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
counsel, already admitted that he was the sender of the first three messages on Atty.
Madarang's cell phone.
This was also the ruling of the Court in the recent case of Zaldy Nuez v. Elvira Cruz-Apao. 4 6
In that case, the Court, in finding the respondent therein guilty of dishonesty and grave
misconduct, considered text messages addressed to the complainant asking for a million
pesos in exchange for a favorable decision in a case pending before the CA. The Court had
the occasion to state:
. . . The text messages were properly admitted by the Committee since the same
are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which
provides:
Second. The respondent's testimony during the hearings held before Investigating Officer
Atty. Longalong is replete with inconsistencies and "loopholes." He claimed that he made
inquiries from other CA staff and learned that there was indeed a deal between someone in
the criminal section and a certain Rhodora of the RTC, Pasig. He further claimed that the
said parties wanted to get back at him for "immediately serving" the release order which
prevented them from demanding the balance of the deal from Lagua's relative. However,
this bare claim was not corroborated by any witness. Moreover, the respondent alleged
that two anonymous callers claimed to know something about the case against him; when
asked about it, he stated that he no longer exerted efforts to find out who they were as
they did not give out their names:
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
Q: On page 5 of your affidavit, you said in paragraph 8 "That I made some
inquiry and some personnel of the Court of Appeals told me that there is
indeed a deal between a staff in the Criminal Section and Rhodora of RTC,
Pasig. Can you tell us who is this staff?
IacHAE
INVESTIGATOR:
Sino siya?
A: Hindi po siya . . . 'yong tawag po niya sa akin sa telepono nang malaman
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
po dito sa CA na ako ay kinasuhan ninyo tumawag po siya sa Personnel.
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
Q: Who is siya?
Lalaki o babae?
A: Una po babae tapos 'yong pangalawa po lalaki.
INVESTIGATOR:
Sinong kinakausap?
A: Ako po.
INVESTIGATOR:
Hinahanap ka?
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
Q: What did he tell you? He, lalaki, ano?
A: Opo.
A: Hindi po.
INVESTIGATOR:
Q: Hinahanap ka, okay, when you answered the phone, what did you say?
A: Tinanong ko nga po kung sino siya eh tumutulong lang daw siya sa akin
dahil ang naririnig niyang tsismis din dyan eh baka po si Rhodora ang may
ka-kuan sa Criminal.
INVESTIGATOR:
Anonymous caller.
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
You are very fond of answering calls. You don't even know the name.
Q: That anonymous caller told you that there must be some deals between
Rhodora and someone from the Criminal Section?
INVESTIGATOR:
Anong sagot mo raw? cDTSHE
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
Q: Anong sagot niya sa tulungan kasi nakakarinig siyang tsismis?
INVESTIGATOR:
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
Q: Di ba she was the one who offered to help?
Q: Okay. How did your talk end with this girl or lady?
A: Nung pagsalita ko nga pong baka pupuwede akong tulungan, wala na.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Q: How about the man, the gentleman or the boy who called?
A: Same kuan din po ang kanilang kuan e.
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
Don't use kuan.
ATTY. ROSERO:
JUSTICE MAGTOLIS:
Q: Alright, you were not the one who answered the call?
A: Hindi po.
A: Exact words, sa naalala kong sinabi niya "Alam mo, Mr. Salud," Salud po
ang kuan niya sa akin, "narinig ko sa labas, istoryahan dyan sa labas na
baka si Rhodora ang may ka-kuan dito sa Criminal." Ang sabi ko po sa
kanya "Iyan din ang itinawag sa akin kahapon. Eh dalawa na kayo eh baka
naman pupuwede nyo akong matulungan. Puede ko bang malaman ang
pangalan mo?" Ganun din po, ayaw na pong magsalita ibinaba na [ang]
telepono.
A: Wala na po.
Q: Did you not check with Rhodora, "What is this they are talking about that it
might be between you and someone in the Criminal Section?" You never
asked her that?
A: Hindi ko na rin po . . .
Q: You did not. But I thought you wanted help from those people who can
help you?
This respondent's actuation on this matter, if at all true, is again contrary to the normal
reaction of one who has been administratively charged, and wants to clear his name of any
wrongdoing. EcHTDI
Indeed, the Court is looked upon by people with high respect, a sacred place where
litigants are heard, rights and conflicts settled and justice solemnly dispensed with.
Misbehavior within or around the vicinity diminishes its sanctity and dignity. The conduct
and behavior required of every court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest
clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. Their conduct must, at all times, be characterized by, among other things,
propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the public's respect and confidence in the
judicial service. 4 9 Public service requires the utmost integrity and strictest discipline.
Thus, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity
not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private dealings
with other people. 5 0
While there is no direct evidence to suggest that he actually extorted money to "facilitate"
the issuance of the appeal bond and release order which he himself served, the
surrounding circumstances, as well as the inconsistencies in his testimony, point towards
administrative culpability. The respondent's actuations fall short of the standard required
of a public servant. He is guilty of gross or grave misconduct. Misconduct is a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction
from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior, 5 1 while
"gross," has been defined as "out of all measure; beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful;
such conduct as is not to be excused." 5 2 Under the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and
Regulations, grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal from the service even for the
first offense, as it is classified as a grave offense. However, considering that the
respondent has not been previously charged nor administratively sanctioned, the Court
finds that a penalty of suspension for one year and six months will serve the purpose of
disciplining the respondent.
Court personnel, from the lowliest employee to the clerk of court or any position lower
than that of a judge or justice, are involved in the dispensation of justice, and parties
seeking redress from the courts for grievances look upon them as part of the Judiciary.
They serve as sentinels of justice, and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably
affect the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people's confidence in it. 5 3 Thus, any
conduct which tends to diminish the image of the Judiciary cannot be countenanced. HESAIT
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Tinga, Chico-Nazario and
Garcia, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio Morales and Azcuna, JJ., are on
official leave.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 2.
2. Id. at 14.
3. Id. at 13.
4. Exhibit "C," Rollo, pp. 34-35.
5. Rollo, p. 14.
6. Exhibit "B," Rollo, pp. 26-29.
7. Exhibit "C," Id. at 34-35.
8. Exhibit "7."
11. Rollo, p. 3.
12. Rollo, pp. 3-4.
13. Id. at 19-24.
14. Rollo, pp. 20-23.
15. Now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
39. Fernandez v. Versola, A.M. No. CA-04-40, 13 August 2004, 436 SCRA 369.
40. Avancena v. Judge Liwanag, 446 Phil. 710 (2003).
41. Magarang v. Judge Jardin, Sr., 386 Phil. 273 (2000).
42. Office of the Court Administrator v. Morante, A.M. No. P-02-1555, 16 April 2004, 428
SCRA 1, 20.
50. Concerned Citizens of Laoag City v. Arzaga, A.M. No. P-94-1067, 30 January 1997, 267
SCRA 176.
51. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th ed. (1979), p. 901.
52. Id. at 632, citing State Board of Dental Examiners v. Savelle, 90 Colo. 177, 8 P. 2d 693,
697.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
53. A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL which took effect
on June 1, 2004.